Monogamy is irrational and immoral

[Base groove]

Axiom: It is impossible to make demands of people and expect them to adhere.
Axiom: It is immoral to restrict somebody's basic rights.

Monogamy is a proposition wherein each participant demands that the other restricts their basic rights.

Therefore, it is irrational (due to the impossible nature of making demands) and immoral (due to the inherent immorality of restricting others' rights).

The rational and moral approach to love is polyamory, where neither participant places demands or restrictions on the other or themselves that would infringe on their basic rights or create a situation with impossible expectations.

 

[Jennywocky]

Is it possible to ethically be monogamous by promising (for oneself) to remain faithful to your partner, rather than demanding your partner be faithful to you?

 

[Base groove]

Is it possible to ethically be monogamous by promising (for oneself) to remain faithful to your partner, rather than demanding your partner be faithful to you?

(sorry to be so dismissive initially)

I believe it is irrational because promising yourself to be monogamous will create false expectations.

However, actually following through with it is a different story. It is possible for a person who is polyamorous on principle to live their entire life as a practicing monogamist per se however it's technically not monogamy.

Subscribing to objective principles that are in place to control yourself or others is like admitting that you couldn't control yourself otherwise or find your own moral principles.

 

[Hawkeye]

When monogamy works, there's nothing quite like it; however, it should not be legally enforced.

 

[StevenM]

Is it possible to ethically be monogamous by promising (for oneself) to remain faithful to your partner, rather than demanding your partner be faithful to you?

I have little evidence of the argument, but in my opinion, forcing yourself to be faithful with willpower would eventually grade you down. It may be better to stick with what you think is right, and be aware of how you feel.

Ethically (again in my opinion), be open and honest with the partner, and (try to) discuss each other's views in a casual way, and see if an agreement can be reached.

 

[Cognisant]

Are we talking about sex or emotional attachment?

The sexual exclusivity or monogamy is pretty absurd, in the modern era as we have contraceptives and the means of preventing the transmission of STDs so there's no rational reason why sex can't be treated as merely a social activity.

As for emotional attachment I disagree, I'm aware that people are perfectly capable of having multiple strong emotional attachments but that's just something I don't want to share, I'm willing to share my thoughts and feelings with anyone who asks, but my heart and my mind are MINE. If try to tell me how to think I'll shut you up and shut you down, likewise if I care about someone it dosen't extend to their friends, family or pets unless I personally decide it does, so if I was emotionally attached to someone who goes around forming such attachments with other people and expecting me to share them... I can have nothing to do with them.

I could have a bombshell bisexual girlfriend who introduces me to her smoking hot bisexual friend and I'd be fine with it right up until my girlfriend turns to me and says that because she cares deeply about her friend she expects me to care about her too, then it's over, I'm leaving.

 

[Base groove]

Are we talking about sex or emotional attachment?

The whole she-bang

The sexual exclusivity or monogamy is pretty absurd, in the modern era as we have contraceptives and the means of preventing the transmission of STDs so there's no rational reason why sex can't be treated as merely a social activity.

I don't see why contemporary inventions have any bearing on the implicit rationality of an abstract concept. Transcend things like STDs, contraceptives... and think about basic human rights and what rationality is at the core.

As for emotional attachment I disagree, I'm aware that people are perfectly capable of having multiple strong emotional attachments but that's just something I don't want to share, I'm willing to share my thoughts and feelings with anyone who asks, but my heart and my mind are MINE. If try to tell me how to think I'll shut you up and shut you down, likewise if I care about someone it dosen't extend to their friends, family or pets unless I personally decide it does, so if I was emotionally attached to someone who goes around forming such attachments with other people and expecting me to share them... I can have nothing to do with them.

Whatever you are willing to do and what you want out of life is your exclusive right. This is actually a basic premise in my reasoning.

The fact that you accept the primary exclusivity of your mind and heart... is testament to the idea that it is immoral to make demands of another to restrict these aspects of their humanity.

The fact that you do not want involvement in a relationship where emotional exclusivity is not afforded is a rational decision based on your personal feelings and morality. However, it is not evidence to support the idea that a concept such as monogamy is inherently rational.

I could have a bombshell bisexual girlfriend who introduces me to her smoking hot bisexual friend and I'd be fine with it right up until my girlfriend turns to me and says that because she cares deeply about her friend she expects me to care about her too, then it's over, I'm leaving.

Once again.... you're saying nothing, really. You're telling me how you feel about monogamy but you have not addressed the points I've made in the op.

 

[Jennywocky]

(sorry to be so dismissive initially)

No worries, I was essentially just asking for clarification on the angle you were viewing things through.

However, actually following through with it is a different story. It is possible for a person who is polyamorous on principle to live their entire life as a practicing monogamist per se however it's technically not monogamy.

True, I think.

But we're getting more into the nuances of motivation for behavior versus the outcome / what something resembles at this stage. (i.e., you're stating polyamory can look like monogamy in some circumstances even if there are underlying foundational differences in the suppositions).

Subscribing to objective principles that are in place to control yourself or others is like admitting that you couldn't control yourself otherwise or find your own moral principles.

This leads to the interesting question as to how consistently human beings hold themselves to the ideals they most favor, especially consciously, and whether it's more correct to live in sync to one's essential impulses versus exerting some control over one's external behavior in the hopes of evoking change.

Is it wrong to mentally hold a standard for oneself that one might not be 100% compelled to follow, and what would justify such a choice?

We are often stuck between competing goods (or choosing among lesser evils), not goods vs evils; sometimes we struggle between rational thought and emotional impulse, or having to make hard choices between head and heart based on long-term projections of outcome, etc. Are there situations where it's proper to impose an ideal on one's behavior rather than just going with a particular instinctive or emotional inclination?

I have little evidence of the argument, but in my opinion, forcing yourself to be faithful with willpower would eventually grade you down. It may be better to stick with what you think is right, and be aware of how you feel.

I think if one is staying in a particular situation (monogamous marriage or whatever else) purely out of willpower, you are correct. Willpower is situational and finite; unless we're somehow finding fulfillment or gaining energy from the relationship, we will run out. And meanwhile, the relationship can be very painful rather than positive... so using an explicit promise to mandate a partner's fidelity might still be a losing proposition.
Where I can see a promise as useful in a situation where there are competing internal forces, so a person can choose to ignore the impulse/need that feels least important. It's a form of conscious self-discipline, not other-control.

Ethically (again in my opinion), be open and honest with the partner, and (try to) discuss each other's views in a casual way, and see if an agreement can be reached.

I agree -- rather than making blanket promises, it makes more sense to be in sync with each other through the currents of the relationship, and if things stop working and you can't come to terms, then each person should be free to go their way.

 

[Base groove]

Are there situations where it's proper to impose an ideal on one's behavior rather than just going with a particular instinctive or emotional inclination?

(JW I'm not purposely disregarding your whole post but I believe I have pinpointed the most relevant part of it)

Rational acceptance of polyamory is one such situation.

Although you might feel bad about the prospect of your partner finding other love you can impose an ideal of rationality and morality on your own conscience if you accept the basic principles I have proposed, that it is irrational and immoral to demand monogamy of another.

Further to this, people have a right to act on their feelings so if you do not want to stay in a relationship with a person who finds other love then you have a right to leave. What you do not have a right to do is expect them to be monogamous out of principle.

 

[Cognisant]

The fact that you do not want involvement in a relationship where emotional exclusivity is not afforded is a rational decision based on your personal feelings and morality. However, it is not evidence to support the idea that a concept such as monogamy is inherently rational.

True, although by the same reasoning nor is monogamy inherently irrational or immoral, unless it's non-consensual but then that's not really the same thing is it?

At least I don't think it is.

 

[Bock]

Money does not trickle down, neither does sex... Monogamy minimizes suffering and maximizes happiness for the population. Not that anybody cares about the large chunk of men (or men in general really) that gets fucked over by the sexual free market. Women in general doesn't seem to be very happy either ironically. As if post-industrial work being absolutely soulless and detached from any form of meaning wasn't enough.

 

[Base groove]

True, although by the same reasoning nor is monogamy inherently irrational or immoral, unless it's non-consensual but then that's not really the same thing is it?

At least I don't think it is.

It is irrational because even if a person promises you something you can not actually expect them to keep it.

It is immoral because people have a right to love whomever they want, regardless of the arbitrary/technical demands placed upon them by their partners or even promises they've made in the past.

Where does consent enter the picture, exactly? There has to be a starting point to reason from... if it is immoral to ask a person to be monogamous and irrational to expect a person to be monogamous,

Then is it moral or rational to expect a polyamorous person to be honest about their affairs?

 

[Base groove]

Then is it moral or rational to expect a polyamorous person to be honest about their affairs?

Consistent with my line of reasoning, the answer to this is no.

How does one reconcile this?

 

[StevenM]

I have little evidence of the argument, but in my opinion, forcing yourself to be faithful with willpower would eventually grade you down. It may be better to stick with what you think is right, and be aware of how you feel.

Ethically (again in my opinion), be open and honest with the partner, and (try to) discuss each other's views in a casual way, and see if an agreement can be reached.

Then again, there may be handful of times where being honest and open goes against appropriateness. Interactions with humans is very complex, and hard to put in concrete terms. There is a lot of situational discretion involved.

I'm just trying to analyze and compartmentalize the topic without changing or inaccurately representing the structure. When it comes to emotional contact with people, it's all crazily dynamic and more of an artistic endeavor. Very similar to music, which is why I'm very obsessed and intrigued with it all.

 

[Jennywocky]

(JW I'm not purposely disregarding your whole post but I believe I have pinpointed the most relevant part of it)

Rational acceptance of polyamory is one such situation.

Although you might feel bad about the prospect of your partner finding other love you can impose an ideal of rationality and morality on your own conscience if you accept the basic principles I have proposed, that it is irrational and immoral to demand monogamy of another.

Further to this, people have a right to act on their feelings so if you do not want to stay in a relationship with a person who finds other love then you have a right to leave. What you do not have a right to do is expect them to be monogamous out of principle.

We actually agree in general, here, especially the comment I noted in red.

I don't think love entails demanding certain behavior from the other person, or it's not love -- you're just binding them to you potentially against their will. People can share their expectations with each other, that's part of communication; but rather than demanding things from each other, each reserves the right to walk if the relationship is no longer agreeable to them.

(All that being said, I think communication and respect and personal investment is important; walking any time a relationship doesn't meet one's standards will likely result in a lack of any relationships. Typically some level of negotiation is necessary since people have different needs.)

Anyway, to tie it back to the whole monogamy/polyamory thing, I don't think an imposed promise (as a means of coercion) is ethical or helpful in the long-term. If I can't handle a partner who is polyamorous, then I need to leave... but I can't bind that person to me. Just as my partner has the freedom to make similar decisions.

 

[Cognisant]

It is immoral because people have a right to love whomever they want, regardless of the arbitrary/technical demands placed upon them by their partners or even promises they've made in the past.

Then the promise is broken and the monogamy of both parties is over.

Monogamy is a consensual thing, if there is no consent then it is not monogamy thus it is neither irrational nor immoral to expect monogamy whilst someone consents to monogamy because if they're not practicing while consenting then the simple fact of the matter is that they're being deceitful.

 

[Absurdity]

Axiom: It is impossible to make demands of people and expect them to adhere.

Wat.

The expectation is impossible? No. The two stage act of demanding something of a person and them adhering is impossible? No. That's more or less the basic mechanism of every functioning human society.

It's like you're going bird watching and insisting the whole time that birds do not fly.

Axiom: It is immoral to restrict somebody's basic rights.

Wat.

By what ethical understanding? And what the fuck is a right?

 

[Base groove]

Monogamy is a consensual thing, if there is no consent then it is not monogamy thus it is neither irrational nor immoral to expect monogamy whilst someone consents to monogamy because if they're not practicing while consenting then the simple fact of the matter is that they're being deceitful.

There is evidence that supports the idea that 50% of monogamous arrangements are violated by one or both participants.

The idea here is that even if you think you are monogamous or if you want to be, and your partner convinces you of the same, it is an irrational proposition as it relies strictly on your perceptions or worldview and there is no rational reason to believe these promises will be kept. A person can even cheat repeatedly and still consider themselves monogamous because they promise their partner certain things and allow themselves to be deceived likewise.

The expectation is impossible? No. The two stage act of demanding something of a person and them adhering is impossible? No. That's more or less the basic mechanism of every functioning human society.

It's like you're going bird watching and insisting the whole time that birds do not fly.

This bird watching analogy is actually much more applicable to the idea that monogamy is a natural state based on human observations.

In other words, I've been 'people watching' and I'm insisting that they aren't inherently monogamous even though many claim that they are.

It is absolutely impossible to expect people to adhere to your demands. I can not believe you are making this case that it is possible with 100% certainty; that is a foolish proposition. Every person who cheats a monogamous relationship (physically or emotionally) is evidence to support the fact that it is an irrational proposition. The reason being... they may have professed undying monogamy and cheated anyway.

By what ethical understanding? And what the fuck is a right?

Virtue ethics vs. deontological ethics.

What is a right?? This is more of a proscriptive term rather than descriptive ....to be elucidated with examples.

I do not have a right to demand my partner to be exclusive to me.
I do have a right to leave a relationship I don't want to be in.

I do not have a right to rape a person.
I do have a right to have sex with whomever I please.

I do not have a right to shackle somebody.
I do have a right to profess my love to them.

 

[Absurdity]

It is absolutely impossible to expect people to adhere to your demands.

One can expect anything they want with little effort.

I can not believe you are making this case that it is possible with 100% certainty; that is a foolish proposition. Every person who cheats a monogamous relationship (physically or emotionally) is evidence to support the fact that it is an irrational proposition. The reason being... they may have professed undying monogamy and cheated anyway.

I'm not making that case at all. If you say it's "impossible," I only need one counter-example. Not sure where all this stuff about foolishness and 100% certainty comes from. You're the one saying contracts don't exist and could never work. I'm over here going

And how are you defining monogamy? If you're in a monogamous relationship and your partner cheats is it somehow immediately terminated? Of course not. A relationship can be monogamous if it endures incidences of cheating -- in fact, I would claim that is the very best and strongest form of monogamy.

Virtue ethics vs. deontological ethics.

What is a right?? This is more of a proscriptive term rather than descriptive ....to be elucidated with examples.

I do not have a right to demand my partner to be exclusive to me.
I do have a right to leave a relationship I don't want to be in.

I do not have a right to rape a person.
I do have a right to have sex with whomever I please.

I do not have a right to shackle somebody.
I do have a right to profess my love to them.

This is all very crypto-religious and I'm struggling to make sense of it. I suppose it's somewhat tangential though.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Just a distinction I'd like to put forth with regards to 'people watching'...Monogamy and fidelity are not the same thing. Monogamy is being married to only one person at a time. It is essentially an exclusive relationship, but covert mating outside the pair bond occurs in all monogamous species. Bonding with a single mate (monogamy) and extramarital affairs seem to be part of our evolutionary pair-bonding strategy. We like devotion AND philandering.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Monogamy is not a promise, it's a system. I have more to say on this but it will have to wait till later.

 

[Absurdity]

Just a distinction I'd like to put forth with regards to 'people watching'...Monogamy and fidelity are not the same thing. Monogamy is being married to only one person at a time. It is essentially an exclusive relationship, but covert mating outside the pair bond occurs in all monogamous species. Bonding with a single mate (monogamy) and extramarital affairs seem to be part of our evolutionary pair-bonding strategy. We like devotion AND philandering.

Thank you. This is what I was grasping at.

 

[Cavallier]

If both people willingly agree to monogamy of their own free will then monogomy is not coercive, demanding, or violating anybody's rights.

There is evidence that supports the idea that 50% of monogamous arrangements are violated by one or both participants.

This made me giggle. This also means that 50% of monogamous arrangements are not violated by either party.

It's an arrangement between humans and therefore just as frail as any other agreement humans make with one another.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Axiom: It is impossible to make demands of people and expect them to adhere.
Axiom: It is immoral to restrict somebody's basic rights.

Axiom one contradicts the Axiom #2.

It is impossible to demand of people that it is impossible/immoral for them to restrict somebody's rights.

It is impossible to expect people to adhere to morality.

Starting from axiom #2.

It is immoral to restrict someones right to make demands followed by expectations to these demands. Which results in that it is immoral to restrict somebody's basic rights to communicate and form agreements with other people.

Where did you unbury that.

Axiom 1 and 2 propose something irrational and immoral...

 

[Base groove]

In response to Blarraun and other posters who have fixated on Axiom 1, I shall revise it:

Instead of saying it is impossible to make demands of people and expect them to adhere, I would revise the idea to claim it is impossible to make or receive promises that last an eternity, as an observation I have arrived at by noting that some estimates claim 50% of monogamous relationships are violated.

Axiom 1: It is impossible to make or receive promises that last eternally.

~~

What are the axioms of monogamy, then?

Open question.

Demonstrate how the axioms of monogamy are not violated by the premises of my argument that it is irrational and immoral.

 

[Red myst]

Monogamous individuals who pair bond and live true to themselves (their nature) could not be immoral. No more or less than polyamory individuals who have multiple pair bonds and are true to themselves.

 

[phen the hobo]

I promise that I will never be born in 1842. That should last for all eternity.

What is the point of semantics games?

 

[Base groove]

I promise that I will never be born in 1842. That should last for all eternity.

What is the point of semantics games?

To do exactly as you have done: demonstrate the futility of such a thing. It's binary logic I'm using. People lie (1). Trusting people is irrational.

Millions of people are hurt all the time by their failure to accept this basic fact. Why live in denial of it? What's with the stupid idealism?

You're better off NOT making or receiving promises. Although one may logically arrive at the principle 'not to lie' it is violated by 99% of people.

As soon as you remove the promises from a relationship, is it still monogamous? No. It must enter a different category. Even if people practice monogamy it is fundamentally different from professing monogamy to another as one involves making/receiving promises which is irrational.

Polyamorous people may practice monogamy for life, but what they have surely not done is exclusively commit themselves (physically and emotionally - and I mean romantic love as well as sexual lust -) to just one other person.

I assume that most of them recognize the immorality that is inherent in a monogamous agreement which is why they refrain. Dispute this if you will.

 

[Cavallier]

Monogamous

You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Okay, maybe I'm being a jerk with that.

Let's start over: Do you mean to say that promises of any sort should not be made? Monogamy requires a promise be made and therefore should not be done. Yes? No? Ignore the question and wander off on your blind quest to do whatever it is you are trying to do with this thread?

 

[Base groove]

You keep using that word. I don't think that words means what you think it means.

Okay, maybe I'm being a jerk with that.

Let's start over: Do you mean to say that promises of any sort should not be made? Monogamy requires a promise be made and therefore should not be done. Yes? No? Ignore the question and wander off on your blind quest to do whatever it is you are trying to do with this thread?

No, I have thought of this as well. Perhaps I ought to review it - the definition of monogamy, and see what I can do to rectify this problem you've found.

Monogamy is a form of relationship in which an individual has only one partner during their lifetime or at any one time (serial monogamy), as compared to polygamy or polyamory.

So the potential exists that I have confused monogamy as the coincidence with an idea that monogamy is a commitment that people make to each other.

Polyamory is the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

With that in mind, I have also confused polyamory as the commitment with some idea that polyamory is actually a coincidence.

Problem solved thank you. I'll think about it. Sorry for the fluff thread Cav. I am now prepared to wander off alone on my blind quest without talking about it further.

 

[Base groove]

In case you missed the sarcasm those two definitions are distinctly different on principle.

Monogamous relationships that are violated are not monogamous according to this definition. Monogamy has been presented as a coincidence, thus a naturally occurring thing. There is no mention whatsoever of consent or commitment in the definition of monogamy however in polyamory there is explicit mention of consent, as though it doesn't happen coincidentally and some level of commitment and therefore a promise is required.

Something is wrong.

 

[Cavallier]

Problem solved thank you. I'll think about it. Sorry for the fluff thread Cav. I am now prepared to wander off alone on my blind quest without talking about it further.

I never said it was a fluff thread.

However, it is seemily rehtorical on your part. So I have to wonder what the point of it all is.

 

[Base groove]

I never said it was a fluff thread.

However, it is seemily rehtorical on your part. So I have to wonder what the point of it all is.

I'm trying to comb through the logic?

Knock knock.

 

[Cavallier]

In case you missed the sarcasm those two definitions are distinctly different on principle.

Monogamous relationships that are violated are not monogamous according to this definition. Monogamy has been presented as a coincidence, thus a naturally occurring thing. There is no mention whatsoever of consent or commitment in the definition of monogamy however in polyamory there is explicit mention of consent, as though it doesn't happen coincidentally and some level of commitment and therefore a promise is required.

Something is wrong.

Got it.

So for the sake of....sake:

Wiki on Polygamy

Wiki on Monogamy

Wiki on Polyamory

Interesting that only Polyamory actually includes the idea of consent and ethics in the wiki description.

 

[Base groove]

Interesting that only Polyamory actually includes the idea of consent and ethics in the wiki description.

Had you not prompted me I would not have noticed this either.

It seems as if monogamy is presented as virtuous and not deontological and the reverse is true for polyamory however the ethical stance of my argument is that polyamory is virtuous because it contains no promises and no restrictions, which is in stark contrast to the Wiki article.

I think there's some bias afoot.

 

[redbaron]

Personally it's more about the concept of freedom and ownership. There are things I find very unappealing and borderline sickening about being in a relationship that is contingent on romantic and sexual exclusivity. Which goes both ways. I don't want to own someone's right to sexual and romantic freedom just as much as I don't want mine to be owned.

I'd prefer to be alone than in that situation and I've been quite comfortable with spending the rest of my life without a partner if necessary. I value personal freedom in both myself and others more than any relationship.

 

[Cavallier]

Had you not prompted me I would not have noticed this either.

Smiley face?

*twitch*

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH BASE GROOVE?

 

[redbaron]

I feel like I should add, that as someone who identifies as polyamorous, I don't see monogamy as either irrational or immoral. It's just not preferable to me. Humans are emotional and individualistic animals, so to me it is only natural that you'd find people all along the spectrum of poly/mono.

So I think people are missing the important points of these discussions when they try to paint either one as irrational or immoral. Some people are perfectly happy demanding and having their emotional and sexual exclusivity demanded. I'm okay with them choosing that, even if the thought of it makes me feel ill.

 

[Base groove]

Some people are perfectly happy demanding and having their emotional and sexual exclusivity demanded. I'm okay with them choosing that, even if the thought of it makes me feel ill.

I still believe it is objectively immoral according to the principles I have started with, however... I admit those are potentially subjective preferences....

So if this thread is going anywhere - I have 2 questions.

1. Based on the axioms alone and the working definitions in this thread, is monogamy immoral? Simply put: is the reasoning sound?

2. Is something inherently illogical or incomlplete with the aforementioned axioms, even if they are identified as potentially 'subjective' preferences? is there another anchor point to begin reasoning from that does not lead to the same conclusions? Just how subjective are the original axioms?

(bearing in mind Axiom 1 has been revised)-

 

[Hawkeye]

No it is not immoral because you can leave your initial partner and start a (potentially happier) monogamous relationship with another.

However, if "Till death do us part" was enforced properly, then yes... that would immoral.

 

[scorpiomover]

I do have a right to have sex with whomever I please.

I do not have a right to rape a person.

You don't have the right to have sex with whomever you please, because you don't have the right to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you, because that's rape, and you don't have the right to rape a person.

Rights are contingent. They are not absolutes.

I do have a right to have sex with whomever I please.

Axiom: It is immoral to restrict somebody's basic rights.

Monogamy is a proposition wherein each participant demands that the other restricts their basic rights.

I do not have a right to rape a person.

Rights are contingent. They are not absolutes.

You don't have to commit to a monogamous relationship. But if the other person is only willing to have sex with you in a monogamous relationship, then if you go ahead and have sex with her without that commitment, you've had sex with her when she didn't want to, and that's rape, and you don't have the right to rape a person. So if a girl won't have sex with you unless it's in a committed monogamous relationship, then you only have 2 rights:
1) To not have sex with her.
2) To commit to a monogamous relationship, and have sex with her.
Those are your only 2 options.

Axiom: It is impossible to make demands of people and expect them to adhere.

There is evidence that supports the idea that 50% of monogamous arrangements are violated by one or both participants.

The idea here is that even if you think you are monogamous or if you want to be, and your partner convinces you of the same, it is an irrational proposition as it relies strictly on your perceptions or worldview and there is no rational reason to believe these promises will be kept. A person can even cheat repeatedly and still consider themselves monogamous because they promise their partner certain things and allow themselves to be deceived likewise.

This bird watching analogy is actually much more applicable to the idea that monogamy is a natural state based on human observations.

In other words, I've been 'people watching' and I'm insisting that they aren't inherently monogamous even though many claim that they are.

It is absolutely impossible to expect people to adhere to your demands. I can not believe you are making this case that it is possible with 100% certainty; that is a foolish proposition. Every person who cheats a monogamous relationship (physically or emotionally) is evidence to support the fact that it is an irrational proposition. The reason being... they may have professed undying monogamy and cheated anyway.[/quote]Let's take the rape example again.

It's been often estimated that 1 in 4 women will be raped in their lifetime. So by your own arguments, it's irrational to think that humans aren't inherently rapists. Should we then say that it's impossible to make demands that humans don't rape and expect them to adhere? Should we remove rape from being a crime?

Rape currently carries a heavy punishment of years of incarceration. Realistically, it probably puts rapists off of raping women in any situation where there might be witnesses. We live in a very socially integrated society. Chances are that rapists meet a lot more women in social situations where there would be witnesses that heard what was going on, than the women they actually raped. So realistically, they're probably holding back from at least 90% of the women they'd like to rape. So if we did remove rape from the list of crimes, and removed the punishments for rape, realistically, almost 100% of women would get raped.

Most women want to never get raped. Most men would much rather their S/O is not raped. The situation is far from ideal. But we don't live in a perfect universe. So, we'd rather have rape as a crime, so that at least 75% of women don't get raped.

The same is true of monogamy. We know that infidelity rates are very high. But still, it's that, or give up entirely. If we do that, then all those women who only want sex in a committed monogamous relationship, would either have to stay virgins for their whole lives, or would have to have sex with someone in a situation where they really don't want sex, and then all those women would be raped.

The rational and moral approach to love is polyamory, where neither participant places demands or restrictions on the other or themselves that would infringe on their basic rights or create a situation with impossible expectations.

Lots of people are in open relationships these days. Lots of women quite like them. So if that's what you want, it's very accessible. You just have to make the effort to find one, like anything else.

However, many men have dated women who also wanted to have sex with other guys, and most of them couldn't handle it, and ended the relationship. They usually got way too jealous and kept getting upset with their S/O. Some didn't, but the girl slept with all their friends, and their friends made fun of them about it, because it's not illegal to make fun of your friends. The constant humiliation made them feel like shite, and then they felt much more unhappy than when they were single. So, even though most men like the idea of being in a polyamorous relationship, when it comes to the real thing, they discover that they'd rather be in a monogamous relationship.

Some men and women are able to maintain an open relationship. I've seen several men say they've been in one for 20 years. But there have to be rules. Each person can only have sex with people their partner approves, or situations like the above occur, and the relationship breaks down and ends. So even in a polyamorous relationship, you're still restricted from have sex with whomever you please, even if the other person is willing, and you still have to deal with the natural human tendency to be naturally jealous and want your partner to only have sex with you.

Polyamory is a choice. It's not better.

 

[StevenM]

If both people willingly agree to monogamy of their own free will then monogomy is not coercive, demanding, or violating anybody's rights.



This made me giggle. This also means that 50% of monogamous arrangements are not violated by either party.

It's an arrangement between humans and therefore just as frail as any other agreement humans make with one another.

I thought I seen the percentage of infidelity much higher than that. Almost over 75%.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Monogamy is a system and not simply a promise or a commitment. Since all systems change depending on who's inside the system, monogamy operates differently depending on the strength of a couple's differentiation (level of growth). Monogamy is a closed system that creates a monopoly on sex. However, if your well differentiated, this monopoly is respected and heeded as inherent in the system. For poorly differentiated couples, the sexual monopoly is seen as a trap fostering belligerent exploitation.

You can want monogamy from the worst in you or the best in you.
You can want polyamory from the worst in you or the best in you.
Either choice can be immoral or moral depending on where your motivation lies. Is your motivation coming from externally imposed pressure or internally imposed. Their lies the difference.

 

[redbaron]

I still believe it is objectively immoral according to the principles I have started with, however... I admit those are potentially subjective preferences....

So if this thread is going anywhere - I have 2 questions.

1. Based on the axioms alone and the working definitions in this thread, is monogamy immoral? Simply put: is the reasoning sound?

2. Is something inherently illogical or incomlplete with the aforementioned axioms, even if they are identified as potentially 'subjective' preferences? is there another anchor point to begin reasoning from that does not lead to the same conclusions? Just how subjective are the original axioms?

I don't really see the point you're making. People being polyamorous or monogamous isn't a matter of reasoning, it's just a personal preference. I'm not poly because I reason that monogamy is bad, it's just how I am. I see things through that perspective and I personally value one system over another. It's not even monogamy specifically that I don't agree with as much as the concept of ownership/possession. It's not inherent to monogamy - but it is often the case.

Monogamy doesn't inherently entail a restriction of rights or whatever, since monogamy itself is just a broad term we use to categorize exclusive relationships. Whether or not it's possessive is a product of the people involved.

As for irrational. Humans are irrational and when it comes to relationships doubly so. Which is why like I said - I don't choose to be polyamorous because *reasons* I just am that way. Monogamy, polyamory, polygamy, gay, straight, bi - they're all just categories and you could justify any one of them as irrational or immoral by adopting some specific axiom that defines them as such.

So it just sounds like you're trying to convince yourself of something but I have no idea what it is or what your motivations are.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Some people are perfectly happy demanding and having their emotional and sexual exclusivity demanded. I'm okay with them choosing that, even if the thought of it makes me feel ill.

^Illustrates a poorly developed person's concept of monogamy. If I, of my own free choice, want exclusivity, I don't have to demand it of others but I'll hold myself accountable...to myself as an act of self definition and integrity. It doesn't have to demand it of others.

 

[Base groove]

^Illustrates a poorly developed person's concept of monogamy.

To be fair it was basically a representation of what I said monogamy is. A deontological ethical system wherein participants exchange promises for exclusivity.* Deontological because cheating is condemned as an immoral act where there can be no virtue, however I have rejected it because I believe it is immoral to restrict somebody's rights, particularly a right to share their body and heart with whomever they please and is willing. I think the evidence speaks for itself as to how despicable cheating really is... people are shackled, even if they put them on themselves, they're still shackles. You can wear silk wristbands underneath but the shackles are still there.

Scorpiomover has made an excellent point regarding 'rights' after Absurdity brought it up earlier but then withdrew. I would like to address that more but I don't have any quarrel really with what he has to say, (except a brief point he made in the final paragraph which was inconsistent) and I digress...

If I, of my own free choice, want exclusivity, I don't have to demand it of others but I'll hold myself accountable...to myself as an act of self definition and integrity. It doesn't have to demand it of others.

So your position on this issue is that my argument that "monogamy is irrational" is incorrect based on a rejection of Axiom1, which has been revised to read: it is impossible to make or receive promises that last eternally.* Please correct me if I am wrong.

* The reason why I keep saying I have revised Axiom 1 is because it was pointed out very early on that "demands" was a narrow and incomplete terminology so - I - have - abandoned - it.

 

[redbaron]

^Illustrates a poorly developed person's concept of monogamy. If I, of my own free choice, want exclusivity, I don't have to demand it of others but I'll hold myself accountable...to myself as an act of self definition and integrity. It doesn't have to demand it of others.

Don't know if you're referring to my concept of it or the people in the relationship I was talking about. Yes, self-accountability as opposed to demands is something that would ideally be present in all relationships.

I used it as the example because I was trying to demonstrate that I don't have any moralistic issue with even the most possessive kind of monogamous relationship - which is how it was being portrayed.

I wasn't implying that monogamy inherently involves demands of exclusivity.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

To be fair it was basically a representation of what I said monogamy is.



So your position on this issue is that my argument that "monogamy is irrational" is incorrect based on a rejection of Axiom1, which has been revised to read: it is impossible to make or receive promises that last eternally. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I'm not competent with axiom's and I don't want to be restricted by them (yours, mine or other's). What does it matter if you "prove" your axiom rational. People are fallible. They transgress their integrity frequently but that's not the point. The point is, I suffer and diminish myself if I've freely chosen to be monogamous and transgress that promise to myself. However, I'm MUCH more likely to adhere to my own standards if they are my own and not coming from pressure from outside of me (ie, my partner, society etc...).

I already know I'll fail and that people will fail me (and so does everyone who has experienced suffering). It's a matter of striving for "who do I want to be".

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Don't know if you're referring to my concept of it or the people in the relationship I was talking about. Yes, self-accountability as opposed to demands is something that would ideally be present in all relationships.

I used it as the example because I was trying to demonstrate that I don't have any moralistic issue with even the most possessive kind of monogamous relationship - which is how it was being portrayed.

I wasn't implying that monogamy inherently involves demands of exclusivity.

To clarify, I was referring to the people you described in the relationship. The demanding, possessive kind of people who use monogamy to bludgeon, withhold and wield in righteousness. This represents two poorly differentiated partners with a low level version of monogamy. I was linking your description to what I said in a prior post.

 

[redbaron]

To clarify, I was referring to the people you described in the relationship. The demanding, possessive kind of people who use monogamy to bludgeon, withhold and wield in righteousness. This represents two poorly differentiated partners with a low level version of monogamy. I was linking your description to what I said in a prior post.

Oh well never mind what I was saying then. Silly me